If a Worker falls in the Parking Lot When No One is Around, is it a Work Comp Case?

If a worker has clocked out and is walking across the parking lot when
he trips over a large crack in the pavement, does work comp cover his
injuries? Many people may guess this is not a work comp case because the
worker has clocked out. Others may say that it should be a work comp case
if the worker is still on the employer’s premises. However, the
question of whether a worker’s injuries will be covered under work
comp in these situations is a little more complicated and involves the
application of the “going and coming” rule.

The First District Court of Appeals (which is the Court that hears all
appeals taken from work comp judge’s decisions) decided a case this
month that sheds some light on this question. The case is Christine Quinn
v. CP Franchising, LLC/Zenith Insurance, Case No. 1D16-0257 (October 13,
2016). Ms. Quinn had left work and was walking to her car parked in its
usual spot in a lot adjacent to her place of employment. She sustained
injuries when she tripped and fell in the parking lot before reaching
her car. In denying work comp coverage for her injuries, the Judge of
Compensation Claims (JCC) went through a detailed review of the “going
and coming” rule as applied to the facts of her case.

The “going and coming” rule is perhaps best summed up in Doctor’s
Business Services, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and
Ryan v. Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest, & Fischer, 673 So. 2d 494
(Fla. 1st DCA 1996). As a general rule, “the hazard’s encountered
by an employee, while he is going to, or return from, his regular place
of work are not ordinarily incidental to the employment, and injuries
resulting from such hazards do not arise out of or in the course of the
employment.” (Id. at 495)

That sounds simple enough, right? What is so complicated about whether
work comp covers a person that gets hurt in the parking lot? Well, as
usual, there are exceptions to a general rule. The three most common exceptions
are (1) where special hazards exist on the normal route, (2) the employee
travels between two parts of the employer’s premises, and (3) the
area where the injury occurred is used by the employer for the employer’s
purpose. (Id. at 496). This last exception is known as the “special
use” rule.

In the recent Quin case, the JCC did not find any evidence of a special
hazard under the first exception and the second exception did not apply
to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the focus was on the third
exception known as the “special use” rule. While the injured
worker (Ms. Quin) agreed with the JCC as to the first and second exceptions,
she disagreed with the JCC finding that the parking lot was not used by
her employer for the employer’s purpose and took this issue before
the First DCA.

The First DCA found the JCC to have applied the correct standard as to
whether the employer had sufficient control over the area where the worker
fell in order for the area to be considered either part of the employer’s
premises or an area that was actually used by the employer for its purposes.
The DCA also found the JCC to arrived at the correct conclusion denying
work comp coverage because the employer had insufficient control over
the parking lot where Quin fell in order for this area to be considered
part of the employer’s premises or for the employer’s use
of that lot to be considered a “special use.”

The employer leased the building where Quin worked, but did not lease the
parking lot where Quin was injured. Nor were there any specific parking
spaces assigned to the employer for its use. Instead, the lease agreement
for the building stated the employer could have for its non-exclusive
use up to 32 spaces in the adjacent parking lot. The evidence supported
the employer paid an additional fee for the maintenance of the lot, but
did not show the employer exercised any control over the maintenance or
how it was done. Additionally, the parking lot was open to and used by
the public. Therefore, the employer’s use of the parking lot was
not materially different from the use by the public at large. Ms. Quin
was denied work comp coverage for her injuries.

The Quin Court also mentions the JCC findings to be consistent with a similar
case decided by the First DCA earlier this year. Evans v. Holland &
Knight, 194 So. 3rd 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

If you have questions about whether your accident should be covered under
workers’ compensation, call the work comp attorneys with Syfrett,
Dykes & Furr at (850) 795-4979.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

x

⚠

Your browser is out of date. To get the full experience of this website,
please update to most recent version.